I don't even know what buttons I pushed to get here.
followed tags: 75
followed domains: 2
badges given: 43 of 45
member for: 835 days
Wow. All of that sounds absolutely, completely awful. I'd just like to say, in my defense, I don't agree with civil asset forfeiture the way it's practiced and I think I've said so before on Hubski. The deputy I talked to, also very much believes in what he does and talked about it in a compelling and charismatic way. So I think, in his defense, he thinks he's doing the right thing.
. . . Bush Sr. striked me as a pretty cool guy.
::ducks and covers::
This is anecdotal, second hand information, that may or may not be entirely accurate, but damn this has been on my mind for years and I'd love some feedback.
A friend of a friend of mine is a deputy and I only met him once. He works at the county jail and it's his job to interview people who come in who have drug charges as part of their arrest. It's his job to get names of the people who supplied them with drugs so that officers can go find them and then catch them and bring them in and slowly work up the ladder building evidence. He says more often than not, people on the bottom of the ladder can get their charges reduced for cooperating and the whole goal is try to actually hit drug traders where it hurts in their supply chain.
This all strikes me as very clever and very fair and a good way to police things. I relayed this story to someone a few years later and they told me that this is a horrible way to do policing and all they're doing is trying to take advantage of people and pad their arrest records and blah blah blah. I don't remember what their argument was exactly. I just remember they were adamant that what was going on was wrong and that people's legal rights were being violated.
SO SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRUG WAR, can someone please shed some light on this scenario for a very confused man? Morally what's going on doesn't strike me as wrong. Legally, I'm sure they're not doing anything wrong either, cause other wise the courts wouldn't let them do what they're doing. johnnyFive and someguyfromcanada, you're both lawyers, any insight?
A joke stops being a joke as soon as someone starts taking it seriously.
They got bought out by a private company a few years back. The only people they have to answer to are the banks that give them money and distributors that give them products. Otherwise, if that weren't the case, I'd agree with you 100.99%!
I saw each of the Lord of the Rings movies in theaters when they came out, and once or twice after, but never again and probably not within the last five or six years. One of my bud has them on DVD. I think I might ask to borrow them.
Very interesting article. It has me wondering now if it would be possible for companies like Hasbro, Mattel, and MGA to leverage some of their debt to buy part of Toys R Us. Not that that'd necessarily be a good idea, but it'd probably make for an interesting experiment. Kind of like how, sometimes bakers unions buy a brand so they have a distinct product they can all sell and control, instead of catering to whatever brands that hire them.
The lack of security is actually crazy. Go to a random website, look up what U-Block origin is blocking, and Google some of the add networks that show up. It's crazy how many of them are on sites that help people tackle malware issues. Shoot. That virus that got my Android phone? Five bucks says it got on there from some kind of ad network exploit because ironically, the only third party app I ever installed on it was MalWare Bytes.
That doesn't sound right. If that majority of their stores are profitable, closing them would only hurt their chances at recovery. If I had to guess, it's not their lack of income that's holding them back, it's their inability to pay off their debts. Hence, the filing for bankruptcy.
I mean, if I were running that company, the last thing I'd do is close any stores without a clear game plan and good reasons why. Part of the reason why companies prop up unprofitable stores is to keep competitors at bay, yes, but the other part of the reason is that closing stores is a long and expensive process, especially if you have to cancel leases and contracts. If a store is losing your company only $35k a year for instance, but closing it would cost you $100k, it might be prudent to just hold onto it for another year or so and see if it's possible to turn things around.
Thanks! That was the first glitch one I made that went well. I'm trying to figure out how to recreate some of the glitches you see when you're OTA TV signal gets messed up, but it's harder than it looks. This one obviously, looks nothing like any of those glitches, I just wanted to make something to emphasize the look of panic on her face.